https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114430
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2024-03-22
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Component|c |tree-optimization
Keywords| |diagnostic
Sam James <sjames at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
Summary|False positive for -Wformat |[11/12/13/14/15 regression]
| |False positive for
| |-Wformat-overflow
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Confirmed. This is because we end up with
<bb 2> [local count: 268435458]:
__builtin_strcpy (&item, &WWPersons);
__builtin_strcpy (&item, &MEM <struct WWPerson[3]> [(void *)&WWPersons +
12B]);
__builtin_strcpy (&item, &MEM <struct WWPerson[3]> [(void *)&WWPersons +
24B]); [tail call]
return;
First of all the laddress pass decomposes the &WWPersons[i_3].Name address.
Disabling that has FRE after cunroll replace &WWPersons[i_15].Name with
the above form. That's because of how gimple_fold_stmt_to_constant_1
handles valueization of such ref.
This in the end confuses the diagnostic machinery.
